IN the gospel of this day it is related that, when Jesus Christ entered into “Capharnaum, there came to him a centurion beseeching him” to cure his servant, who lay sick of the palsy.  Jesus answered: “I will come and heal him”.  No, replied the centurion: “I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed”—v. 8.  See the centurion’s faith, the Redeemer instantly consoled him by restoring health to his servant; and, turning to his disciples, he said: “Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven.  But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”.  By these words our Lord wished to signify, that many persons born in infidelity shall be saved, and enjoy the society of the saint, and that many who are born in the bosom of the Church, shall be cast into Hell, where the worm of conscience, by its gnawing, shall make them weep bitterly for all eternity.

   Let us examine the remorses of conscience which a damned Christian shall suffer in Hell.  First remorse, arising from the thought of the little which he required to do in order to save his soul.  Second remorse, arising from the remembrance of the trifles for which he lost his soul.  Third remorse, arising from the knowledge of the great good which he has lost through his own fault.

   First remorse of the damned Christian, arising from the thought of a little which he required to do in order to save his soul.

   1.  A damned soul once appeared to St. Hubert, and said, that two remorses were her most cruel executioners in Hell:—the thought of the little which was necessary for her to have done in this life to secure her salvation; and the thought of the trifles for which she brought herself to eternal misery.  The same thing has been said by St. Thomas.  Speaking of the reprobate, he says: “They shall be in sorrow principally because they are damned for nothing, and because they could most easily have obtained eternal life”.  Let us stop to consider this first source of remorse: that is, how few and transitory are the pleasures for which all the damned are lost.  Each of the reprobate will say for eternity: If I abstained from such a gratification; if, in certain circuмstances, I overcame human respect; if I avoided such an occasion of sin—such a companion, I should not now be damned; if I had frequented some pious sodality; if I had gone to confession every week; if, in the temptations, I had recommended myself to God, I would not have relapsed into sin.  I have so often proposed to do these things, but I have not done them.  I began to practice these means of salvation, but afterwards gave them up; and thus I am lost.

   2. This torment of the damned will be increased by the remembrance of the good example given them by some young companions who led a chaste and pious life even in the midst of the world.  It will be still more increased by the recollection of all the gifts which the Lord had bestowed upon them, that by their cooperation they might acquire eternal salvation; the gifts of nature—health, riches, respectability of family, talents; all gifts granted by God, not to be employed in the indulgence of pleasures and in the gratification of vanity, but in the sanctification of their souls, and in becoming saints.  So many gifts of grace, so many divine lights, holy inspirations, loving calls, and so many years of life to repair past disorders.  But they shall for ever hear from the angel of the Lord that for them the time of salvation is past.  “The angel whom I saw standing, swore by Him that liveth for ever and ever,……that time shall be no longer”—Apoc., x. 6.

   3.  Alas! what cruel swords shall all these blessings received from God be to the heart of a poor damned Christian, when he shall see himself shut in the prison of Hell, and that there is no more time to repair his eternal ruin.  In despair he will say to his wretched companions: The harvest is past; the summer is ended; and we are not saved”—Jer., vii. 20.  The time, he will say, of gathering fruits of eternal life is past; the summer, during which we could have saved our souls, is over, but we are not saved: the winter is come; but it is an eternal winter, in which we must live in misery and despair as long as God shall be God.

   4.  O fool, he will say, that I have been!  If I had suffered for God the pains to which I have submitted for the indulgence of my passions—if the labours which I have endured for my own damnation, had been borne for my salvation, how happy should I now be!  And what now remains of all past pleasures, but remorse and pain, which now torture, and shall torture me for eternity?  Finally, he will say, I might be for ever happy, and now I must be for ever miserable.  Ah! this thought will torture the damned more than the fire and all the other torments of Hell.  

   Second remorse of the damned, arising from the remembrance of the trifles for which they lost their souls.

   5.  Saul forbid the people, under pain of death, to taste food.  His son Jonathan, who was then young, being hungry, tasted a little honey.  Having discovered that Jonathan had violated the command, the king declared that he should die.  Seeing himself condemned to death, Jonathan said with tears: “I did but taste a little honey,……and behold I must die”—I. Kings, xiv. 43.  But the people, moved to pity for Jonathan, interposed with his father, and delivered him from death.  For the unhappy damned there is no compassion; there is no one to intercede with God to deliver them from the eternal death of Hell.  On the contrary, all rejoice at the just punishment which they suffer for having wilfully lost God and Paradise for the sake of a transitory pleasure.

   6.  After having eaten the pottage of lentils for which he sold his right of primogeniture, Esau was tortured with grief and remorse for what he had lost, and “roared out with a great cry”—Gen., xxvii. 34.  Oh! how great shall be the roaring and howling of the damned, at the thought of having lost, for a few poisonous and momentary pleasures, the everlasting kingdom of Paradise, and of being condemned for eternity to a continual death!

   The unfortunate reprobate shall be continually employed in reflecting on the unhappy cause of their damnation.  To us who live on Earth our past life appears but a moment—but a dream.  Alas! what will the fifty or sixty years which they may have spent in this world appear to the damned, when they shall find themselves in the abyss of eternity, and when they shall have passed a hundred and a thousand millions of years in torments, and shall see that their miserable eternity is only beginning, and shall be for ever in its commencement?  But, have the fifty years spent on this Earth been full of pleasures?  Perhaps the sinner, living in enmity with God, enjoyed uninterrupted happiness in his sins?  How long do the pleasures of sin last?  Only for a few moments: the remaining part of the lives of those who live at a distance from God is full of anguish and pain.  Oh! what will these moments of pleasure appear to a damned soul, when she shall find herself in a pit of fire?

   8.  “What hath pride profited us? or what advantage hath the boasting of riches brought us?  All those things have passed away like a shadow”—Wis., v. 8.  Unhappy me! each of the damned shall say, I have lived on Earth according to my corrupt inclinations; I have indulged my pleasures; but what have they profited me?  They have lasted but for a short time; they have made me lead a life of bitterness and disquietude; and now I must burn in this furnace for ever, in despair, and abandoned by all.

   Third remorse of the damned, arising from the knowledge of the great good which they have lost by their own fault.

   9.  A certain queen, blinded by the ambition of being a sovereign, said one day:  “If the Lord gives me a reign of forty years, I will renounce Paradise”.  The unhappy queen reigned for forty years; but now that she is in another world, she cannot but be grieved at having made such a renunciation.  Oh! how great must be her anguish, at the thought of having lost the kingdom of Paradise for the sake of a reign of forty years, full of troubles, of crosses, and fears!  “Plus coelo torquetur, quam gehenna”, says St. Peter Chrysologus.  To the damned the voluntary loss of Paradise is a greater torment than the very pains of Hell.

   10.  The greatest pain in Hell is the loss of God, that sovereign good, who is the source of all the joys of Paradise.  “Let torments”, says St. Bruno, “be added to torments, and let them not be deprived of God”—serm. de jud. fin.  The damned would be content to have a thousand Hells added to the Hell which they suffer, provided they were not deprived of God; but their Hell shall consist in seeing themselves deprived for ever of God through their own fault.  St. Teresa used to say, that when a person loses, through his own fault, a trifle—a small sum of money, or a ring of little value—the thought of having lost it through his own neglect afflicts him and disturbs his peace.  What then must be the anguish of the damned in reflecting that they have lost God, a good of infinite value, and have lost him through their own fault?

   11.  The damned shall see that God wished them to be saved, and had given them the choice of eternal life or of eternal death.  “Before man is life and death,…that which he shall choose shall be given him”—Eccles., xv. 18.  They shall see that, if they wished, they might have acquired eternal happiness, and that, by their own choice, they are damned.  On the day of judgment they shall see many of their companions among the elect; but, because they would not put a stop to their career of sin, they have gone to end it in Hell.  “Therefore we have erred”, they shall say to their unhappy associates in Hell; we have erred in losing Heaven and God through our own fault, and our error is irreparable.  They shall continually exclaim: “There is no peace for my bones because of my sins”—Ps., xxxvii. 4.  The thought of having been the cause of their own damnation, produces an internal pain, which enters into the very bones of the damned, and prevents them from ever enjoying a moment’s repose.  Hence, each of them shall be to himself an object of the greatest horror.  Each shall suffer the pain threatened by the Lord: “I will set THEE before thy face”—Ps., xlix. 21.

   12.  If, beloved brethren, you have hitherto been so foolish as to lose God for a miserable pleasure, do not persevere in your folly.  Endeavour, now that you have it in your power, to repair your past error.  Tremble!  Perhaps, if you do not now resolve to change your life, you shall be abandoned by God, and be lost for ever.  When the Devil tempts you, remember Hell:—the thought of Hell will preserve you from that land of misery.  I say, remember Hell, and have recourse to Jesus Christ and to most holy Mary, and they will deliver you from sin, which is the gate of hell.

By these words our Lord wished to signify, that many persons born in infidelity shall be saved, and enjoy the society of the saint, and that many who are born in the bosom of the Church, shall be cast into Hell, where the worm of conscience, by its gnawing, shall make them weep bitterly for all eternity.

Saint Alphonsus

Did anyone notice the above words by Saint Alphonsus?

Here is a Priest and a Doctor of the Church that preached on Hell and our Lady more than anyone I have heard of and he teaches Baptism of desire is de fide.  Rather he claims the Church teaches this de fide.  He goes on record for all the world to see but this is something that he erred on according to the Feeneyites.  

The error/heresy of the Feeneyites is powerful.  I remember being convinced of their heresy and wanting to cross out things in books I have such as The Liturgical Year series and the Baltimore Catechism.  I was lulled into it and was ready to claim everyone from Ambrose to Aquinas erred.  But I wondered why all the traditional clergy was also with Ambrose, Aquinas and everyone else.  It was not for human respect as they have renounced potions of human respect for the sake of truth and clearly are not respecter of persons as they go against the flow for the sake of truth no matter what it might cost.  Why would those bold enough to leave the anti-Church and the security of their pensions for the sake of truth not have the "smarts" to agree with the Dimonds?  Were they as stupid as Saint Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas and the rest or was it because maybe all the Doctors, Fathers, Saints and Popes who spoke to the contrary were on to something.  

I had to be sure.  I weighed all I had on the Feeneyite side against all that I was aware of before V2 that was against it and it was no contest.  And this was before I became familiar with Monsignor Fenton.  Praise God I was one of the "lucky" blessed ones.

Once this heresy is embraced, generally speaking, their can be no convincing the Feeneyits otherwise.  Neither, Priest, Bishop, Pope or God can do so.

Again you twist something for your own wicked agenda.

Being born outside the Church does not preclude being converted or eventually brought into the Church.

So you used to be a feeneyite? That's interesting. Maybe that helps explain your posts.

It actually does since he carries with him errors while he runs from the truth - it is, after all,  easier to convert someone ignorant of the faith than it is to convert any one who is running away from the truth as LoT is.

 

Quote from: Ladislaus

Again you twist something for your own wicked agenda.

Being born outside the Church does not preclude being converted or eventually brought into the Church.

Similarly, being born in the bosom of the Church and growing up to recognize the fallacies based on so-called baptism of desire, doesn't mean you are then outside the Church.  

If St. de Liguori had known then the wild extremes that BoD-ers would one day take those words to mean, he would have been a lot more discreet about it.

The Church has never defined BoD, for there have been much bigger problems to deal with.  And now, we can hardly expect any dogmatic definitions to take place in the present climate.  

For the two extremes to be at war over this is really unbecoming of Catholics.  

The only "heresy" is to hurl epithets of falsehood at the other side.  It is not a 'dogma', nor is its rejection a 'dogma' -- you can believe it if you want to, but to demand that someone else has to agree with you is just stupid.  

If you believe what the Church teaches and you desire Baptism, then GET BAPTIZED.

But running around looking for excuses for why someone doesn't need to worry about not being baptized (a double negative!) is only good for exposing your silliness.  And it's a turn-off to anyone who's looking at the Church for conversion.  It gives them a list of reasons to NOT be concerned, and that Baptism is NOT an important thing, and there's nothing to worry about.  "Everything's gonna be okay."  

The devil couldn't have said it better -- "It's okay, don't sweat it. No biggie!"

As the quoted article says, the trifles over which I lost my salvation ("2.  the trifles for which he lost his soul").  All I had to do was to take the necessity for baptism seriously, instead of listening to those guys who say it's not important, and everything's gonna be okay, no biggie!


.

Your ideas were condemned by Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter:

But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

Bowler, Cantrella, stubborn, (and you NeilO) appear to be adherents to the SBC and therefore deny that they must believe anything but revealed truths guaranteed by the Church - that is, dogmas, or truths of the Faith. They accepts that some truths have not been solemnly defined but are nevertheless taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, but they deny that they must believe other truths besides those directly revealed or guaranteed by infallible authority. They are quite wrong on both counts.

There are three distinctions that need to be made here:

1. The objects of infallibility are twofold in nature, because of the purpose for which infallibility was granted to the Church. The infallibility of the Church exists to guarantee the truths revealed by God. Primarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our belief those revealed truths. Secondarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our acceptance those truths which are necessary for the security of the revealed truths. In this latter category are dogmatic facts, solemn condemnations of error, etc. When a theologian mentions the phrase, "pertains to Faith" it is to these secondary objects of infallibility that he refers. They are not "of Faith (de fide) but rather they "relate to matters of Faith" - they pertain to what is of Faith per se. The theology manuals all cover this material in detail and should be consulted by anybody who wishes to understand the point.
2. The mode according to which we believe something varies also, because of what has been written above concerning the objects of the magisterium. Not everything taught by the Church must be believed under pain of loss of Faith and membership in the Church. In other words, not all sins against the submission due to the teaching authority of the Church are heresies. Some are mortal sins of a different nature. But they are still mortal sins. Thus it would be a mortal sin to doubt or deny the doctrines taught by the theologians as "certain", but one would not thereby be a heretic. You, bowler, and the other revolving door of characters seems not to have noticed this truth, and in any case you cannot admit it while you are still under the influence of your self-made anti-BOD drug.

3. The teaching office of the Church demands our submission on two counts - because it cannot err, and because it speaks with the authority of Christ. In other words, we must accept the authoritative teaching of the Church (the "authentic" magisterium) even when it does not teach infallibly. The nature of our submission will differ according to the case. If Holy Church speaks infallibly (either via her solemn or ordinary universal magisterium) then we may give the assent of supernatural Faith or of ecclesiastical faith. But if the Church teaches non-infallibly, then we give the assent of a sincere internal conviction which is of a lower order than either kind of faith, but which, being a species of certitude, excludes the possibility of doubt. In the latter case we submit because we know that the chance of error is virtually zero but also because we bend our intellects to the authority of Christ, because that is the authority of the magisterium. "He who hears you, hears Me."

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Ladislaus

Again you twist something for your own wicked agenda.

Being born outside the Church does not preclude being converted or eventually brought into the Church.

Similarly, being born in the bosom of the Church and growing up to recognize the fallacies based on so-called baptism of desire, doesn't mean you are then outside the Church.  

If St. de Liguori had known then the wild extremes that BoD-ers would one day take those words to mean, he would have been a lot more discreet about it.

The Church has never defined BoD, for there have been much bigger problems to deal with.  And now, we can hardly expect any dogmatic definitions to take place in the present climate.  

For the two extremes to be at war over this is really unbecoming of Catholics.  

The only "heresy" is to hurl epithets of falsehood at the other side.  It is not a 'dogma', nor is its rejection a 'dogma' -- you can believe it if you want to, but to demand that someone else has to agree with you is just stupid.  

If you believe what the Church teaches and you desire Baptism, then GET BAPTIZED.

But running around looking for excuses for why someone doesn't need to worry about not being baptized (a double negative!) is only good for exposing your silliness.  And it's a turn-off to anyone who's looking at the Church for conversion.  It gives them a list of reasons to NOT be concerned, and that Baptism is NOT an important thing, and there's nothing to worry about.  "Everything's gonna be okay."  

The devil couldn't have said it better -- "It's okay, don't sweat it. No biggie!"

As the quoted article says, the trifles over which I lost my salvation ("2.  the trifles for which he lost his soul").  All I had to do was to take the necessity for baptism seriously, instead of listening to those guys who say it's not important, and everything's gonna be okay, no biggie!


.

Your ideas were condemned by Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter:

Quote

But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

Bowler, Cantrella, stubborn, (and you NeilO) appear to be adherents to the SBC and therefore deny that they must believe anything but revealed truths guaranteed by the Church - that is, dogmas, or truths of the Faith. They accepts that some truths have not been solemnly defined but are nevertheless taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, but they deny that they must believe other truths besides those directly revealed or guaranteed by infallible authority. They are quite wrong on both counts.

There are three distinctions that need to be made here:

1. The objects of infallibility are twofold in nature, because of the purpose for which infallibility was granted to the Church. The infallibility of the Church exists to guarantee the truths revealed by God. Primarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our belief those revealed truths. Secondarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our acceptance those truths which are necessary for the security of the revealed truths. In this latter category are dogmatic facts, solemn condemnations of error, etc. When a theologian mentions the phrase, "pertains to Faith" it is to these secondary objects of infallibility that he refers. They are not "of Faith (de fide) but rather they "relate to matters of Faith" - they pertain to what is of Faith per se. The theology manuals all cover this material in detail and should be consulted by anybody who wishes to understand the point.
2. The mode according to which we believe something varies also, because of what has been written above concerning the objects of the magisterium. Not everything taught by the Church must be believed under pain of loss of Faith and membership in the Church. In other words, not all sins against the submission due to the teaching authority of the Church are heresies. Some are mortal sins of a different nature. But they are still mortal sins. Thus it would be a mortal sin to doubt or deny the doctrines taught by the theologians as "certain", but one would not thereby be a heretic. You, bowler, and the other revolving door of characters seems not to have noticed this truth, and in any case you cannot admit it while you are still under the influence of your self-made anti-BOD drug.

3. The teaching office of the Church demands our submission on two counts - because it cannot err, and because it speaks with the authority of Christ. In other words, we must accept the authoritative teaching of the Church (the "authentic" magisterium) even when it does not teach infallibly. The nature of our submission will differ according to the case. If Holy Church speaks infallibly (either via her solemn or ordinary universal magisterium) then we may give the assent of supernatural Faith or of ecclesiastical faith. But if the Church teaches non-infallibly, then we give the assent of a sincere internal conviction which is of a lower order than either kind of faith, but which, being a species of certitude, excludes the possibility of doubt. In the latter case we submit because we know that the chance of error is virtually zero but also because we bend our intellects to the authority of Christ, because that is the authority of the magisterium. "He who hears you, hears Me."

Well stated good chap. :applause:

Of course Stubborn, not having any idea what he is talking about, jumps right in and adds he two cents of nonsense.  

BTW - we do not run around or even walk around looking for excuses to give others not to get baptized.  We state what the Church teaches in regards to the possibility of non-members being saved.  We do not put a number on it, we do not speculate on who or who did not get saved.  We do not guess as to who will be saved.  We do not tell people not to get baptized because they don't need to.  We simply present the teaching of the Church which states that it is possible for non-members of the Church to be saved.  But the members of the Feeneyite Church have to come up with this absurd accusations to make their error more tenable in the eyes of the unsuspecting.  

Here is a list of things Feeneyites I have encountered have come up with to refute the teaching of the Church on BOD pertaining to the Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Popes who presented the Church's teaching on the issue.  Some of them clearly show how desperate they are to grasp at any straw they can find while we just look to the Church during any time frame from any authority who spoke to the issue.  

1.  They don't understand John 3:5 as it was written.

2.  Trent clarified so those before don't count.  Those after either did not read Trent or did not understand it.  (Trent teaches that no one can be saved apart from baptism or the desire thereof.)

3.  They erred.

4.  The did not mean what they said.

5.  They did not say what they meant.

6.  The non-baptized Saints were secretly and miraculously baptized.

7.  Jesus spent the 40 days after His Resurrection baptizing everyone in Limbo.

8.  The Divine Office is wrong to proclaim the non-baptized as Saints.

9.  It is wrong to commemorate those who were not baptized in the Mass as a Saint.

10.  BOD justifies but does not save.

11.  There is no such thing as invincible ignorance.  

12.  If they were really invincibly ignorant and good-willed God would have denied his permissive will allowing things to go as the normally would and have forced them to get baptized before they died.  

13.  God does indeed condemn souls to Hell for things they are not culpable off.

14.  And now, the ordinary teaching of the magisterium on faith and morals is not infallible.  

15.  What is taught consistently by the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes and Catechisms throughout the history of the Church is unreliable.  

Yes SJB, we all know your idea, which is shared by a multitude of others that the ordinary universal magisterium is incapable of teaching error.

But that is not the teaching of the Church - one of the simplest things to do is to  just try to always remember to use V2 and the NO as the foundation against this error and you will have a chance of understanding what the Church actually teaches about the ordinary universal magisterium. It's either that or you are bound to accept V2 and the NO in their entirety.

Consider if you can that it is because of your idea, which is shared by a multitude of others that the ordinary universal magisterium is incapable of teaching error that the NO exists even to this day.

It certainly is the teaching of the Church, you just won't accept it. Pius IX taught this in Tuas Libenter as you have been shown.

The source of the things you do believe and hold is merely your own agreement with some doctrines taught by the Church (the way of heretics).

... assembled independently of the ecclesiastical authority, ...

The key phrase you have managed to avoid ...